Neceomancer, cannon

Hey all. So I’ve been playing on and off since heart of thorns and now I am getting quite interested in the game. Something keeps bothering me tho, and I’ve searched and searched online and have been unable to find an answer to this particular question.

I’ve been playing with my friend, and I keep calling nexromancer “warlock”, probably because I am a big dnd nerd. I DID find a Disucssion from 2012 about people being kitten about the distinction, but that’s about it.

My question: if the core game has zombies as the main enemy, and Kralkathoric raising the dead, and the whole central plot is about how waking the dead is an aweful profane thing that is terrible for the world and all around negative... why are necromancers considered “heros”

TLDR; wouldn’t a zombie class be a bad guy in a game whose core gameplay revolves around killing zombies? Is there something about a necromancer that is different in some way?

0

Best Answers

Short answer? Ethical practice. 'Heroic' necromancers aren't supposed to go around weaponizing deceased loved ones, binding souls, or all the other things that the dragons and Joko do that are considered bad. By itself, puppeteering dead monsters or engaging in self-harm to bring down villains isn't more morally objectionable than what the other professions do, so that dials necromancers back from 'evil' to just 'rather creepy'.

It's not that straightforward. The Risen are Zhaitan's minions and a product of his corruption.. There are various types of undead in the game and the ones we make or relatively benign. Zhaitan for example can make anyone (except Sylvari) an undead, regardless as to whether they are dead or alive. Necromancer heroes tend to make undead constructs.

Basically yes, there is a world of difference between Zhaitan's undead and a hero necromancer's undead (and again different again to Palawa Joko's undead who you will encounter in a later story arc)

0

Answers

the proto-"warlock" in Gw2 is the revenant, a heavy class with some "dark magician", but here is the "the mists" instead of "forces of hell". I am not accusing anyone of copying, but in PWE neverwinter the warlock was also a new profession at time.

So what we are saying here is that because it is a frankinstein situation, where we are taking body parts and stitching them together to creat constructs that fight for us, that it is okay, but rising the dead in a more traditional way is not...

The best way to look at the situation is not that Zhaitan rose the dead, but that he caused devastating corruption. All 6 dragons do it whether it is through crystallisation, ice warriors, lava monsters or a hive mind of plant based creatures - the ultimate end if the same in that creatures or the environment is corrupted into something else and spreads in a near irreversible way. The fact that Zhaitans are undead is largely irrelevant - it is the overwhelming spread of his corruption which is the key element.

The Necromancer cannon sounds like a device built by Mad Mardine, to be quite honest. It shoots necromancers at the enemy.

In any case, Zhaitan was completely unable to raise necromancer minions, since they were never alive to begin with. The classical necro minion is an animated lump of meat. The advanced version is a spirit bound to a lump of meat. Only exceptionally powerful necromancers may raise proper undead. Even Zhaitan "cheated" occasionally. In the personal Story mission "Ships of the Line" Captain Romke was undead as a ghost, so his spirit was never available to be risen. Yet his body was risen anyway. This means that necromancers often don't raise the dead, but rather animate a mass of flesh in various states of decay.

There is also the odd distinction that Necromancers don’t appear to reanimate the existing dead (á la traditional zombies like with the Risen) but rather seem to create new undead creatures in a Dr. Frankenstein-like way.

@Oglaf.1074 said:
There is also the odd distinction that Necromancers don’t appear to reanimate the existing dead (á la traditional zombies like with the Risen) but rather seem to create new undead creatures in a Dr. Frankenstein-like way.

I'm assuming this is in the spirit of being "good" necromancers. It seems a guild wars necromancer's power is more accurately described as "manipulating life". A lot of the powers manipulate "life force" directly, transferring it from one thing to another, and even reanimating previously dead flesh. However, other powers seem to be focused on controlling life by directly manipulating living things, as the diseases flies a necromancer summons and control are presumably alive, not dead, butthey also can affect formerly-living organic matter, morphing it into more convenient/useful forms while creating minions.

I wonder if a necromancer can use their "flesh-shaping" abilities on a willing, living subject? Is that how plastic surgery works in Tyria?

@ugrakarma.9416 said:
the proto-"warlock" in Gw2 is the revenant, a heavy class with some "dark magician", but here is the "the mists" instead of "forces of hell". I am not accusing anyone of copying, but in PWE neverwinter the warlock was also a new profession at time.

With regards to the warlock in Neverwinter, the MMO itself is based on fourth edition D&D which stopped being supported sometime in 2014(?) and lead into the currently still active 5th edition of dungeons and dragons. The warlock itself has existed since it's introduction in 3.5 edition of dungeons and dragons in a supplement but 4th edition was it's intro as a core class (and remains so in 5th edition). So the Neverwinter warlock has existed for quite a while before it's introduction into the MMO and can hardly be considered something so unique that ArenaNet MUST have copied from it to produce the revenant.

They obviously didn't, because the revenant was based off of a spirit caller called the rituatlist, introduced in Guild Wars: Factions (which was released in 2006). Also, Warlocks as a whole gain their powers from a singular entity, be they fiend or fey or from the Far Realm (this gets expanded in 5th edition and a supplemental book released last year for 5th edition). Revenants, on the other hand, call upon the power of the mists itself, and uses the mists as a method of calling upon echos of legends of the past, heroes and villains alike. Glint, Ventari, Jallis Ironhammer, and Kalla Scorchrazor are all heroes. Of the four, only Glint was most likely able to directly grant powers to people in a similar manner that fiends, fey and others can to warlocks (and even then it's not a guarantee, though I'm sure someone will correct me on that, which I welcome), the other three were completely unable to, because they aren't in any sense similar to fey or fiends.

PLUS, unlike a warlock who can only gain power from a singular type of entity who must willingly grant the power, the revenant can call upon multiple powers at any point in time without horrible backlash. As a revenant, you can call upon the power of a dead demon who is unwilling to let you take his power and punishes you for using it against his will and a dead benign crystal dragon who seeks to protect the world at the same time. There is nothing similar to that in dungeons and dragons, Neverwinter, or any other game that I've seen.

Major differences.

If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate. Veterans can make signatures apparently.

@Oglaf.1074 said:
There is also the odd distinction that Necromancers don’t appear to reanimate the existing dead (á la traditional zombies like with the Risen) but rather seem to create new undead creatures in a Dr. Frankenstein-like way.

I'm assuming this is in the spirit of being "good" necromancers. It seems a guild wars necromancer's power is more accurately described as "manipulating life". A lot of the powers manipulate "life force" directly, transferring it from one thing to another, and even reanimating previously dead flesh. However, other powers seem to be focused on controlling life by directly manipulating living things, as the diseases flies a necromancer summons and control are presumably alive, not dead, butthey also can affect formerly-living organic matter, morphing it into more convenient/useful forms while creating minions.

I wonder if a necromancer can use their "flesh-shaping" abilities on a willing, living subject? Is that how plastic surgery works in Tyria?

@castlemanic.3198 said:
PLUS, unlike a warlock who can only gain power from a singular type of entity who must willingly grant the power, the revenant can call upon multiple powers at any point in time without horrible backlash. As a revenant, you can call upon the power of a dead demon who is unwilling to let you take his power and punishes you for using it against his will and a dead benign crystal dragon who seeks to protect the world at the same time. There is nothing similar to that in dungeons and dragons, Neverwinter, or any other game that I've seen.

Major differences.

Binder from D&D 3.5 supplement Tome of Magic is quite similar in theme, where they become a host of a Vestige to gain powers associated with them (called Legends in GW2).

@Halan.7931 said:
Binder from D&D 3.5 supplement Tome of Magic is quite similar in theme, where they become a host of a Vestige to gain powers associated with them (called Legends in GW2).

Now THAT is similar, my mistake for not knowing about it. There's perhaps a small thematic difference and different specifics in who/what is being hosted but the similarity is undeniable.

I googled the info about the warlock being introduced in a 3.5 supplement, is that the same supplement as the binder? Cause if so, I can see how the thought process went (pull power from an external force vs being host to an external entity).

In a similar fashion, the leap from ritualist to revenant design makes the same sort of thought process (call upon external spirits vs being host to external spirits), but leads to different gameplay.

So I can see it.

If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate. Veterans can make signatures apparently.

also there used to be some dialog in GW1 that hinted at that necromancers were looked at as bing somewhat looked down for being taboo at what they do. I think Anet cut that sort of thing out but it would have added flavor. if for example your a magic user in the Black citadel or a martial user in Rata sum. or a Necromancer in Divinity's reach. If some NPC's would actually be rude to you